Gittin 106

ששקל בהן משקלות כשרה לא קשיא הא בגופן הא בכנגדן

against which weights have been balanced is not disqualified? — There is no contradiction; the one [Raba] speaks of weighing against the water, the other of weighing in it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like butchers, who place meat in water to see how far it will rise, and judge the weight accordingly. ');">¹</span>

בגופן מעשה קא עביד בהו ואי היזק שאינו ניכר שמיה היזק בדיני אדם נמי לחייב אלא אידי ואידי בכנגדן ולא קשיא הא דאסח דעתיה הא דלא אסח דעתיה:

When he weighs in it he is doing work with it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so disqualifying it. ');">²</span>

מתיב רב פפא גזל מטבע ונפסל תרומה ונטמאת חמץ ועבר עליו הפסח אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך

and if damage which is intangible is legally accounted damage he should be punishable also in a human court? — We must say therefore that both speak of weighing against the water, and still there is no contradiction: the one [R. Eleazar] speaks of where he forgot for the moment [that it was water of purification]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he diverted his mind'. And since it says, the water shall be to you for a charge, this disqualifies the water, though it does not render him liable to an earthly court. ');">³</span>

ואי אמרת היזק שאינו ניכר שמיה היזק האי גזלן הוא ממונא מעליא בעי שלומי תיובתא

and the other of where he did not forget.

לימא כתנאי המטמא והמדמע והמנסך אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד חייב דברי ר"מ רבי יהודה אומר בשוגג פטור במזיד חייב

R. Papa raised an objection [from the following]: If a man robbed another of a coin which afterwards was withdrawn from circulation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the Government. ');">⁴</span>

מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר היזק שאינו ניכר שמיה היזק ומר סבר לא שמיה היזק

or <i>terumah</i> which became unclean, or leaven and the Passover intervened,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rendering the leaven forbidden for any use, v. Pes. II, 2. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק דכולי עלמא היזק שאינו ניכר לא שמיה היזק והכא בקנסו שוגג אטו מזיד קא מיפלגי דמר סבר קנסו שוגג אטו מזיד ומר סבר לא קנסו שוגג אטו מזיד

he can say to him, Here is your property, take it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he has no further liability, although the property has meanwhile become worthless, because the robbed article is deemed to have been all the time in the possession of the owner; v. B.K. 96b. ');">⁶</span>

ורמי דרבי מאיר אדרבי מאיר ורמי דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה דתניא המבשל בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל דברי רבי מאיר ר' יהודה אומר בשוגג יאכל למוצאי שבת במזיד לא יאכל עולמית

Now if you say that damage of which there is no visible sign is legally accounted as damage, this [man] is a robber, and ought to pay the value in full?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Since there has been a change in the misappropriated goods they passed into the possession of the robber who should therefore have to make full restitution, Tosaf. V. B.K. 91bff. The words 'this man is a robber' are nevertheless difficult, and best left out with MS.M.] ');">⁷</span>

ר' יוחנן הסנדלר אומר בשוגג יאכל למוצאי שבת לאחרים ולא לו במזיד לא יאכל עולמית לא לו ולא לאחרים קשיא דרבי מאיר אדרבי מאיר קשיא דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה

— This is a refutation.

דר"מ אדרבי מאיר לא קשיא כי קניס בדרבנן בדאורייתא לא קניס

May we say that Tannaim also [differ on this point]? [For it was taught:] If one defiles [another's foodstuffs] or mixes <i>terumah</i> with them or pours a libation from his wine, whether inadvertently or deliberately, he is liable [to make compensation]. So R. Meir. R. Judah says: If inadvertently he is not liable, if deliberately he is liable. Is not the point at issue between them this, that the one authority holds that damage of which there is no visible sign is legally accounted damage, while the other holds that it is not legally accounted damage? — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Both agree that damage of which there is no visible sign is not legally accounted damage, and here the point at issue between them is whether the inadvertent [act] should be penalised on account of the presumptuous one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though according to strict justice he should not be so penalised. ');">⁸</span>

והא מנסך דאורייתא הוא וקא קניס משום חומרא דעבודת כוכבים קנס ליה

one holding that the innocent act is penalised on account of the presumptuous one and the other that it is not so penalised.

דר' יהודה אדר' יהודה לא קשיא כי לא קניס בדרבנן בדאורייתא קניס והא מנסך דאורייתא ולא קניס משום חומרא דעבודת כוכבים מיבדל בדילי מיניה

A contradiction was now pointed out between two statements of R. Meir, and also between two statements of R. Judah. For it has been taught: 'If one cooks food on Sabbath, if by inadvertence he may eat it, but if deliberately he may not. So R. Meir. R. Judah says: If [it was cooked] inadvertently he may eat it after the expiration of Sabbath, but if deliberately he may never eat it. R. Johanan ha-Sandalar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The sandal-maker'. ');">⁹</span>

ורמי דרבי מאיר אדר"מ בדאורייתא דתניא הנוטע בשבת בשוגג יקיים במזיד יעקר ובשביעית בין בשוגג בין במזיד יעקר דברי ר"מ

says: If [it was cooked] inadvertently it may be eaten after the expiration of the Sabbath by others but not by the one who cooked it, if deliberately it may never be eaten either by him or by others'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 71a. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 408-9. q.v. for notes. ');">¹⁰</span>

רבי יהודה אומר בשביעית בשוגג יקיים במזיד יעקר ובשבת בין בשוגג בין במזיד יעקר

One statement of R. Meir seems to contradict another<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For cooking innocently on the Sabbath he imposes no fine but for defiling foodstuffs he does impose one. ');">¹¹</span>

ולטעמיך תקשה לך היא גופה מכדי הא דאורייתא והא דאורייתא מאי שנא שבת ומאי שנא שביעית

and one statement of R. Judah seems to contradict another? — Between the two statements of R. Meir there is no contradiction: where he imposes a fine is for [innocently breaking] a regulation of the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Defiling foodstuffs etc. A fine is necessary because people are more careless about Rabbinical ordinances. ');">¹²</span>

אלא התם כדקתני טעמא א"ר מאיר מפני מה אני אומר בשבת בשוגג יקיים במזיד יעקר ובשביעית בין בשוגג בין במזיד יעקר מפני שישראל מונין לשביעית

but not for [breaking] a rule of the Torah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Breaking the Sabbath. ');">¹³</span> But pouring a libation is forbidden by the Torah, and yet he imposes a fine for doing so [innocently]? — This is because of the special seriousness of the sin of idolatry. Between the statements of R. Judah there is no contradiction: where he imposes no fine is for [breaking] a rule of the Rabbis, but for [breaking] a rule of the Torah he imposes a fine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the offence is more serious. ');">¹⁴</span> But pouring a libation is forbidden by the Torah and he imposes no fine for doing so? — Because of the seriousness of the sin of idolatry people keep clear of it. But even in respect of rules of the Torah one statement of R. Meir was contrasted with another. For it has been taught: 'If a man plants a tree on Sabbath, if inadvertently, he may keep it, but if deliberately, it must be uprooted. If in the Sabbatical year, however, whether he plants it inadvertently or deliberately, it must be uprooted. This is the ruling of R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that he does impose a fine for breaking a rule of the Torah innocently. ');">¹⁵</span> R. Judah says: In the Sabbatical year, if inadvertently, he may keep it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that R. Judah does not impose a fine for innocently breaking a rule of the Torah, so that he also contradicts himself in the same way as R. Meir. ');">¹⁶</span> but if deliberately he must uproot it: [if planted] on Sabbath, whether inadvertently or deliberately, he must uproot it'! — While you are looking for contradictions,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on your view'. ');">¹⁷</span> why not point one out in this statement itself? See now: the one [planting on Sabbath] and the other [planting in the Sabbatical year] are both forbidden by the Torah; why then should there be a difference between them? But the reason for that, you must say, is as was taught: Said R. Meir: Why do I say that [if he plants inadvertently] on Sabbath he may keep it and if deliberately he must uproot it, whereas [if he plants] in the Sabbatical year whether inadvertently or deliberately he must uproot it? Because Israel reckon from the Sabbatical year<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., for the years of 'uncircumcision' (v. Lev. XIX, 23ff.) Hence they remember if a tree was planted in the Sabbatical year, and if it were allowed to remain they might take it as a precedent, and so it was necessary to impose a fine in this case. ');">¹⁸</span>